Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hopp v. Hopp, 156 N.W.2d 212.

152 citing documents.

In Re Marriage of Crockarell 631 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Marriage of Crockarell 631 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Search Warrant of Columbia Heights v. Rozman 586 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Search Warrant of Columbia Heights v. Rozman 586 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See generally Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 173 , (purpose of civil contempt is to secure compliance with an order, not to punish for past misconduct).
Marriage of Schubel v. Schubel 584 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Schubel v. Schubel 584 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Swancutt, d at 224 (concluding that the necessary terms in final confinement order include “providing to the contemnor the opportunity to gain release” (citing Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 175 , )).
Estate of Stollmeyer v. May 580 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Estate of Stollmeyer v. May 580 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
When the duty is performed, the concern of the court is satisfied.” Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
State v. Tatum 556 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
State v. Tatum 556 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
see also Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174-75 , -17 (1968).
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt 551 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1996
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt 551 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1996
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 173
In Re the Welfare of K.E.H. 542 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of K.E.H. 542 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Welfare of E.J.B., d at 769 (quoting Welfare of A.W., d at 225 ); see also Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 173
Mower County Human Services ex rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt 539 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Mower County Human Services ex rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt 539 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Mahady, d at 890 (citing Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 175 , ).
Robbinsdale Clinic, P.A. v. Pro-Life Action Ministries 515 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In re Braun 502 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In re Braun 502 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Only the alleged contemnor could testify as to his or her “reasons for failure [to comply].” Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer 492 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer 492 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Kronick v. Kronick 482 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kronick v. Kronick 482 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174 , (courts must have flexible mechanism to compel performance).
River Towers Ass'n v. McCarthy 482 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
River Towers Ass'n v. McCarthy 482 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The distinction between criminal and civil contempt stemming from our supreme court’s decision in Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , : Whether a contempt proceeding is civil or criminal depends on the purpose behind the court’s exercise of its contempt power.
In Re the Marriage of Engelby v. Engelby 479 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re the Marriage of Engelby v. Engelby 479 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 175 , (burden of proving inability is on the defendant, who should not be held to have sustained the burden when he failed to make a good-faith effort to conform).
Marriage of Schneider v. Schneider 473 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Schneider v. Schneider 473 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 175-77 , -18 (1968) (in civil contempt proceeding brought for failure to pay child support, obligor must show reasons for failure to comply).
In Re the Welfare of E.J.B. 466 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of E.J.B. 466 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 173 , (civil *770 contempt power cannot be used to punish a person for past misconduct).
Marriage of Darcy v. Darcy 455 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Darcy v. Darcy 455 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-20 (Minn.1982) (quoting Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 176 , ) (other citation omitted).
Marriage of Mahady v. Mahady 448 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Mahady v. Mahady 448 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Requisite findings on civil contempt are set forth in Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174-175 , -217 (1968).
Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Finally, at the continued hearing in November 1987, the referee addressed only the ongoing support obligation, not arrear-ages, considered the various findings of the prior orders, and citing Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170 , found that because of appellant’s additional training, he would have an increased earning capacity.
Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Id.; see Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
In re Hixson 434 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In re Hixson 434 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Marriage of Tinsley v. Tinsley 427 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Tinsley v. Tinsley 427 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 174
Marriage of Reif v. Reif 426 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of McNeill v. McNeill 415 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of McNeill v. McNeill 415 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
showing of ⅜ ⅜ * substantially increased or decreased earnings of a party * * * which makes the terms unreasonable and unfair.” A modification is not proper if the support obligor “has not made a reasonable effort by means of his own selection to conform to an order well within his inherent but unex-ercised capacities.” -20 (Minn.1982) (quoting Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 176 , ).
Marriage of Garcia v. Garcia 415 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Garcia v. Garcia 415 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 175 , see Meisner v. Meisner, 220 Minn. 559, 560 , (an obligor who did not voluntarily create a disability for the purpose of avoiding payment, is not guilty of contempt).
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 414 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Gustafson v. Gustafson 414 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The only objective in exercising civil contempt powers in dissolution cases “is to secure compliance with an order presumed to be reasonable.” Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 173